|
4/3/2021 |
Russell |
Donnelly |
JCAN |
FRAMINGHAM |
Massachusetts |
I find the proposed structure of this proposal dubious and annoying.It seems to posit that through a complicated structure that pressures the sources of transportation carbon emission we will... read more I find the proposed structure of this proposal dubious and annoying.It seems to posit that through a complicated structure that pressures the sources of transportation carbon emission we will decrease carbon emissions while protecting lower income folks.Simultaneously its proponents,like Governor Baker, downplay any affect upon the actual price of gasoline and diesel fuel. If you want to do this,I suppose it's better than nothing,unless it's an ineffectual distraction. What is the goal,anyway?The goal is to copy Norway and S.Korea,which will outlaw the sale of gasmobiles in 2025. How is Norway doing this?It's quite simple.When one visits the car dealership in Norway one is presented with two versions of the same car,one electric,one gasoline.The electric one is cheaper to drive off the lot.(Not even considering cost of ownership,lack of repair,etc).So,it's not rocket science.By 2025 in Norway buying a gasmobile will be like now,in the US,buying a Blackberry instead of an I-phone.I suppose it's possible to buy a Blackberry,but why would you? My proposal to add to the TCI? Every day I drive on the Turnpike and see cars,at least as expensive as mine to buy,consuming gasoline.Are they quicker than my car?Likely not.Safer? Likely not,since my car is the safest.Are they more in a hurry and needing to drive 200plus miles without stopping to refuel.Likely not. So here is my proposal,which should not affect lower income folks.Anyone rich enough to buy a gasoline car,new,in 2021 for more than $35,000 should have to pay a yearly pollution tax of $1000 .We don't want pollution,right?(as opposed to employment,investment,etc).We are indirectly paying for all this pollution now.These polluters are increasing my risk of Alzheimer's disease and heart attack.If they want to pollute,let them pay for the privilege.
Use the fee collected to pay for ev rebates for lower income folks. Or for electric school buses. In 2022 raise the fee to $2000 yearly,2023 to $3000,etc. This only applies to cars selling for more than $35,000.That use gasoline.The alternative to paying such fees,for a car costing new $35,000,after rebate,doesn't take a Google search. This would not affect lower income folks,although ultimately,as is true now,low mileage used ev cars will become more available. What will happen to gasoline prices?Unclear.Fewer people will be driving gasomobiles,less demand? But if everyone drives an ev,who will care what gasoline is?Or will we care more to not put up with its stink?And tax its pollution accordingly? |
- |
|
5/6/2021 |
Charles |
Craddock |
Insurance |
Earlysville |
Virginia |
50 cent a gallon increase for gas will further hurt our already struggling economy. Virginia should not join TCI. It will impact average citizens,
truckers and businesses alike. Everything... read more 50 cent a gallon increase for gas will further hurt our already struggling economy. Virginia should not join TCI. It will impact average citizens,
truckers and businesses alike. Everything having to do with delivery by truck will skyrocket. We do not want this?
|
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Bill |
Pugh |
individual resident of TCI state |
Alexandria |
Virginia |
I strongly support the model-rule for the TCI program. A regional cap-and-trade program is essential to lower climate emissions of the biggest source here in my home state of Virginia.
... read more I strongly support the model-rule for the TCI program. A regional cap-and-trade program is essential to lower climate emissions of the biggest source here in my home state of Virginia.
Improvements to the as proposed rule would be:
- A more stringent cap to result in even larger GHG reductions. This is a nickel or dime on the cost of gas, which is already too cheap.
- A minimum investment in revenues to make sure overburdened and underserved communities in VA get more-then-proportional share of investments from the program.
- Acknowledgement that sufficient reductions require additional measures by TCI jurisdictions to reduce VMT and electrify their auto and truck fleets.
- Inclusion of affordable housing near transit as an eligible investment for TCI revenues.
Thank you.
Bill Pugh
Alexandria, VA |
- |
|
5/5/2021 |
Joan |
McIntyre |
Individual |
Arlington |
Virginia |
I support a strong TCI-P Model Rule that (1) ensures meaningful climate action to address Virginia's largest driver of our climate crisis, (2) directs significant investments to correcting... read more I support a strong TCI-P Model Rule that (1) ensures meaningful climate action to address Virginia's largest driver of our climate crisis, (2) directs significant investments to correcting historic inequities in overburdened and underserved communities; and (3) affords Virginia the opportunity for a cleaner, healthier transportation system. I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include (1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments from the program, (2) integration of air quality commitments across Virginia, and (3) robust empowerment of Virginia's Equity Advisory Body. Rapidly reducing carbon emissions from transportation through more robust public transit and multimodal options and conversion of vehicles to electric or zero-carbon fuels is essential to avoiding the worst consequences of the climate crisis. |
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Laura |
Cofsky |
Individual |
Arlington |
Virginia |
I support a strong TCI-P Model Rule that (1) ensures meaningful climate action to address Virginia's largest driver of our climate crisis, (2) directs significant investments to correcting... read more I support a strong TCI-P Model Rule that (1) ensures meaningful climate action to address Virginia's largest driver of our climate crisis, (2) directs significant investments to correcting historic inequities in overburdened and underserved communities; and (3) affords Virginia the opportunity for a cleaner, healthier transportation system. |
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Leigh |
Eicehr |
Individual |
Henrico |
Virginia |
I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include:
(1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of... read more I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include:
(1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments from the program,
(2) integration of air quality commitments across Virginia, and
(3) robust empowerment of Virginia's Equity Advisory Body. |
- |
|
5/9/2021 |
Dan |
O'Brien |
Individual |
Washington |
District of Columbia |
I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include (1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments... read more I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include (1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments from the program, (2) integration of air quality commitments across Virginia, and (3) robust empowerment of Virginia's Equity Advisory Body.
This is very important and necessary for a clean and equitable future! |
- |
|
5/10/2021 |
Lester |
Gabriel |
individual |
Fredericksburg |
Virginia |
I am opposed to this scheme as I am all interstate compacts, which are unconstitutional unless authorized by the U.S. Congress. It is not about fighting climate change, which could be done by... read more I am opposed to this scheme as I am all interstate compacts, which are unconstitutional unless authorized by the U.S. Congress. It is not about fighting climate change, which could be done by employing many different free-market approaches. Instead, it is about controlling more of the lives of U.S. citizens. |
- |
|
5/10/2021 |
Amanda |
Yoder |
Individual |
Chesapeake |
Virginia |
I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include (1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments... read more I call for the TCI-P Model Rule to include (1) a minimum investment amount to ensure overburdened and underserved communities in Virginia receive a greater-then-proportional share of investments from the program, (2) integration of air quality commitments across Virginia, and (3) robust empowerment of Virginia's Equity Advisory Body. |
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Paul |
Wierenga |
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association |
Washington |
District of Columbia |
Please see enclosed comments. Please see enclosed comments. |
Comments of IFTOA on TCI Draft Model Rule (5.7.2021).pdf |
|
8/13/2021 |
Paul |
Wierenga |
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association |
Washington |
District of Columbia |
Please see enclosed comments Please see enclosed comments |
Comments of IFTOA on Draft Framework for Public Engagement_Model Implementation Plan_Regional Collaboration Strategies (8.13.2021).pdf |
|
5/6/2021 |
Chuck |
Rockacy |
independent |
Charlottesville |
Virginia |
• I’m opposed to Virginia joining the TCI. It will impact average citizens, truckers and businesses alike. The cost to the energy sector will trickle down and impact all Virginians using fuel.... read more • I’m opposed to Virginia joining the TCI. It will impact average citizens, truckers and businesses alike. The cost to the energy sector will trickle down and impact all Virginians using fuel.
|
- |
|
5/12/2021 |
Heyward |
Macdonald |
independent |
Charlottesville |
Virginia |
$.50 a gallon?
Come, now. Really? $.50 a gallon?
Come, now. Really? |
- |
|
9/7/2021 |
Kevin |
Tobin |
Independent |
Avon |
Connecticut |
The purchase of 'allowances' does not adequately serve the purpose of reducing emissions. This cost is simply passed down to the consumer; ultimately wreaking havoc on GDP. There needs... read more The purchase of 'allowances' does not adequately serve the purpose of reducing emissions. This cost is simply passed down to the consumer; ultimately wreaking havoc on GDP. There needs to be major tax 'incentives' to produce cleaner energy and reduce GHG. If 'clean energy' becomes synonymous with 'profitability', then the stated goals of this plan are much more likely to succeed. Simply incorporating additional costs only hurts the very people you're trying to protect and is not really an equitable solution on its own. There are many who do wish to 'go green', but the startup is simply too cost prohibitive. Please add financial INCENTIVES to this plan, as the money made from 'allowances' (over the course of inflation that comes with this type of activity) will ultimately end up being next to worthless. The fact is, we should have cut out GHG a LONG time ago. We are already overdue and the fact that corporations can just pay-up and that somehow makes it ok is an insult to our planet, voting citizens and our children. The earth doesn't work that way. 'Paid-for emissions' are still emissions. Greener energy should be a REQUIREMENT, at this point. Gas stations change their pricing constantly, and drivers who commute are not going to stop driving. Since, COVID, driving has even become many individuals full-time job. And electric vehicles provide no benefit to our environment if the electricity they use still comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Consumers still require energy. Added costs, simply get passed down to the end-users who have even less means to make an impact. Ultimately, change rests in the hands of the producers of that energy. As such, clean energy production should be mandated, if not strongly encouraged through credits and tax incentives. Simply taxing emissions, as we've already witnessed over the years, does absolutely NOTHING to produce the desired change this policy lays out. Please provide the 'carrot' AND 'the stick' to ensure our children have a habitable world to live in. |
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Katie |
Sullivan |
IETA |
Washington DC |
District of Columbia |
The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) appreciates this opportunity to share input on the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P) Engagement Process and Draft Model... read more The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) appreciates this opportunity to share input on the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P) Engagement Process and Draft Model Rule. |
IETA Comments_TCI-P Draft Model Rule and Equity_7May.pdf |
|
6/6/2021 |
Russell |
Donnelly |
HPS |
Framingham |
Massachusetts |
I have just read that Conn. seems to be leaving the TCI process too.It seems that they are afraid that adding $.05-$.06 to the price of gas will be just too much .According to Wood Mackenzie and... read more I have just read that Conn. seems to be leaving the TCI process too.It seems that they are afraid that adding $.05-$.06 to the price of gas will be just too much .According to Wood Mackenzie and some other sites (international?)in order to have any hope of keeping global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius,the price of carbon has to move from $22 per ton to $150 per ton by 2030.That's roughly $1.25 more per gallon of gasoline.Big deal.But for Conn. adding a nickel more to the price of a gallon is too much.As far as I can see we are laboring to produce a mouse of a change,instead of an elephant. The whole premise of this initiative is flawed.It's based on the idea that magically by pressuring producers of gas and diesel on their carbon output they will somehow decrease it,provide funds to incentivize renewables for local groups,etc.,and it won't translate to higher prices at the pump which will hurt lower income groups. There are so many better ways to do this.Such as a carbon fee and dividend returned progressively. Or,we could apply the same tax policy we use for everything else in order to find money to fund desired ends.Do we use the Pigou theory of taxation? No,we use the Willy Sutton theory of taxation. Willy Sutton,the bank robber of the thirties,when asked why he robbed banks,he answered-that's where the money is. Now,regarding the federal income tax,we apply this principle.We tax the rich,because that's where the money is. So,if the goal is to move to a carbon free future,we should tax rich polluters.Tax those who choose to commute. So,anyone who can buy a new gasmobile car,in 2021,should pay $1000 for the privilege to pollute.In 2021.In 2022 he should pay $2000 per year.In 2023 he will pay $3000 per year ,and so on.O any car selling for more that $35,000,new. Use the money collected to buy ev school buses first. |
- |
|
5/4/2021 |
Terry |
Sindt |
Homeowner |
Locust Grove |
Virginia |
To raise gasoline prices to pay for some initiative that would only diminish the carbon foot print by a tiny-winy amount compared to sticking it to the middle class again is unfair. Electric cars... read more To raise gasoline prices to pay for some initiative that would only diminish the carbon foot print by a tiny-winy amount compared to sticking it to the middle class again is unfair. Electric cars are a wave of the future and beyond. Do not burden other people to pay for your progress. If you can't make it on your own then go back to the drawing board and figure it out without sticking it to someone else. |
- |
|
5/4/2021 |
Michael |
Gore |
Home Healthcare |
Worcester |
Vermont |
Many of the clients that I work with would benefit from this initiative. Many of the clients that I work with would benefit from this initiative. |
- |
|
5/7/2021 |
Jenny |
Hansbrough |
Healthcare |
Harrisonburg |
Virginia |
I strongly oppose the plan to increase the cost of gas for this project. Families and businesses are already hurting from the “government free money” plan - no one wants to work! Now you want to... read more I strongly oppose the plan to increase the cost of gas for this project. Families and businesses are already hurting from the “government free money” plan - no one wants to work! Now you want to add a tax to gas? This will increase the costs of all services. |
- |
|
5/8/2021 |
Michelle |
Chong |
Harvard Extension School |
San Francisco |
California |
Please see attached comments letter. Please see attached comments letter. |
TCI Comments Letter.docx |
